User talk:64.222.97.201
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Raloi page. ' '. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- DRY (Talk) 03:37, 31 May 2010 Raloi info Please note that the use of intergalactic in the raloi article comes straight from a canon source. It is not for any of us to decide what is and is not a mistake in a canon source. If BioWare says they learned 'intergalactic law', that's what they learned. For all we know, the definition of intergalactic has changed somewhat in the intervening centuries. With that said, please stop inserting sic into the raloi article. Thanks, SpartHawg948 03:47, May 31, 2010 (UTC) jonny on the spot, eh? The definition of "intergalactic" is spaning more than one galaxy. given that there is only one known settled galaxy in this game, it is not intergalactic. it is galactic. By inserting sic, we recognize for this to be so. sources considered canon make mistakes all the time, and it is up to us to recognize this. No harm done in having the tag there, huh? 03:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not sure what was being referred to with 'jonnysic on the spot'. I'm an admin doing admin duties. Again, we don't know that the generally accepted definition of intergalactic hasn't changed by 2183/5. BioWare says it's intergalactic. It's BioWare's universe, so it's 'intergalactic'. End of story. BioWare is very good about correcting mistakes made by canon sources. They haven't said anything about this one, so there is no reason to assume it's a mistake. We are now in edit war territory, and edit warring can result in a ban, Again, please refrain from adding sic to the article. Thanks, SpartHawg948 03:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I meant that you and the other one responded pretty damn quick. Not that that is a bad thing. On the contrary, rather. And I would have to disagree with you. There is reason to assume that this is a mistake, there is plenty of reason. The statement about intergalactic law contradicts all other canon established by the franchise, so therefore it is quite safe to assume that that is in error. Much safer than assuming that it isn't. The chances that Bioware made an error are much greater than them deciding to change a space term in a space opera franchise. 03:57, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Again though, we've seen several times here that BioWare is very good about coming on to the wiki and owning up to mistakes and providing the correct info, for issues much smaller than this one. Disagree all you want, but the canon source says intergalactic, and nothing has come forward to contradict this. Terminology is misused in similar circumstances all the time today. Take 'genocide', for example. No one group of people has ever been entirely eradicated by another, but international law recognizes several instances of genocide throughout history. Not 'attempted genocide', just plain genocide. And as I've said all too many times here, there is no safe assumption, because assumptions are speculation. SpartHawg948 04:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC) You yourself assume that the usage of intergalactic was altered, or misused intentionally. What makes that assumption any safer than my own? Just because the canon source says something doesn't make itself true. Plenty of people involved in murders and other crimes say that it didn't happen, but does that make them true? They are canon, and they were likely there. Bioware isn't beyond making error, and they aren't beyond being able to own up for every mistake. They probably have their hands full with the third game, the movie, and god knows what else they are doing with this franchise. 04:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I make no such assumption. If I assume anything, it's that if BioWare said 'intergalactic', it's because they meant 'intergalactic'. As for your hypothesis about BioWare being too busy, I suppose that's why we've seen most of their mea culpas recently, eh? I know they aren't beyond making errors, but your saying this was an error doesn't make it so. SpartHawg948 04:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :whatever. seriously, if it takes this much work to make an article better, what's the point. Oh, and look at the Mass Effect page, and tell me that my edit shouldn't be done. 04:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC) I don't think it should have been done. It's a valid trivia item about a reference to a specific game (Mass Effect). As such, I see no reason it shouldn't be listed in the article for the game being referenced. SpartHawg948 04:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC) You've gotta be kidding me. ONE small piece of insignificant trivia on a page that has like, 5 sections, and it should still be there? There is only one piece of trivia there, when there are countless bits of trivia in the game. Either more should be there, or none. And don't wikis have policies against trivia? 04:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Some, I suppose, but not this one, as a perusal of our articles will demonstrate (remember that individual wikis set their own policies on this sort of stuff). After all, most of our articles feature trivia, with a fair bit of it coming from BioWare sources. You could also refer to our Manual of Style, which has guidelines on trivia for articles. If you think more info could be added to the Mass Effect trivia section, then feel free to add it. I'm all for the addition of valid content, but not for its removal. SpartHawg948 04:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :You cannot be serious. This is ridiculous. You know what other content would be valid? Adding a section that says "Fun Facts!" and saying stuff about Shepherd "romancing" squadmates and Saren being a baddy. 04:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC) I hope that it is you who was not being serious there. The reason a 'Fun Facts' section would not work is because 'Fun Facts' are subjective in nature. What is true (or fun and factual) to one person isn't to another. On the other hand, confirmed bits of trivia like the one on the Mass Effect page are objective. They are true no matter who reads it. Objective vs Subjective is a pretty big distinction. Again, feel free to add other bits of (objective) trivia. However, if you disagree with the policy of this wiki to allow trivia sections, you are more than welcome to propose eliminating that policy on the Manual of Style talk page. I don't see that proposal going too far, but you are more than welcome to. SpartHawg948 04:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Alright, change the name of the section to "Facts about the Game". What is wrong with that? :It's way too broad a title. Anything is a fact about the game. The fact that it takes place in 2183 is a fact about the game. The fact that it is not available for PS3 is a fact about the game. 'Trivia' is used because it's information that is, quite frankly, trivial. It doesn't really fit anywhere else in the article, and may not be strictly relevant in other sections, but is still information that users would like to see in the article, which is why they added it in the first place. SpartHawg948 04:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Now you are just screwing with me. You get what I mean, I am saying that if the information is valid, I could add anything that is remotely relevant to Mass Effect to the article. At least, that is what you are saying. Go ahead and tell me that you aren't, now. 04:38, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Ok. I'm not. Huh. Look at that. I said I'm not, and nothing happened, likely because I genuinely meant it. I know what you mean, this is true. But as I said above, 'Trivia' was selected for a reason. The info is trivial in nature in most cases, being info that, while interesting, doesn't fit with the in-universe nature of the articles. Again, if you dislike trivia sections or think they should be called something else, feel free to bring it up for discussion and possible change in the appropriate venue. SpartHawg948 04:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC) The trivia section does not fit with the article. Clear as stone. It doesn't make the article any better, it makes it aesthetically unappealing, and it isn't worth its own section in such a small article. It is not supposed to, it is just information that people might find interesting.MEffect Fan 04:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Again, if you feel that way about trivia sections, take it up in the appropriate venue, and let the community as a whole decide. You keep mentioning 'improving the wiki' and whatnot, well this would be a perfect chance! Go for it, or stop harping on it! One of the two would be nice, lest the accusations of not wanting to fix this wiki be turned the other way. SpartHawg948 04:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC) couldn't it be put somewhere that it would fit better? I don't know where, but there has to be some place more specific than the most general article here. 04:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :But it's the one article that the info is directly concerned with. I can't think of a better place than the one relevant article. SpartHawg948 04:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Why isn't there a better article? Maybe something like a trivia page, or Bioware page talking about connections with other games. I dunno 04:57, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::A trivia page, now I have seen every suggestion. A page jsut for the trivia, please. That page would just be useless. Lancer1289 04:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::So more useless then trivia itself? strange. put it in Shepherd's article. It does reference him. 05:00, May 31, 2010 (UTC) We had one of those pages up until the community as a whole voted and decided that the page was getting too long and cluttered, and trivia pertaining to specific things should go on the pages of those specific things. It's for ease of reference, and because, if you were to take all the trivia and put it onto one page, that page would be ridiculously long and people would still keep adding the info to the relevant pages themselves. I'm speaking from experience on this one. SpartHawg948 05:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Additionally, to respond to your last comment, which was put in while I was writing my response, the trivia doesn't reference Shepard as much as it does the game in general, with Shepard being a component of the game as a whole. SpartHawg948 05:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC) That makes it more specific, huh? So, stick it in there, buddy! lawlz 05:03, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Do what now? The trivia was referencing the game, not Commander Shepard. Shepard was mentioned as a component of the game, but the note in the trivia section was about ridiculously long elevator rides, which refers to Mass Effect, not Shepard. SpartHawg948 05:06, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I never saw the big issue with the elevator rides. They were a hell of a lot better than those crappy loading screens in Mass Effect 2, and at least I could listen to my teammates and the news. It only took like 25 seconds anyway. damn mass effect 2.... 05:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC) : :Back on topic, there has to be more than one piece of trivia that references only the game. I am guessing that by now they would have been noticed, which means that they were shuttled off somewhere no one sees for the article's sake. so do the same for this. Send it to Siberia, figuratively. But it'll escape again, just like that bastard Stalin. 7 times... But there has to be somewhere else to put it. 05:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Oh, and editors do make mistakes, see Graybox. Yep, if they fail at something that relevant to the plot of a mission, who is to say they can't fail at something so obscure as a trivial daily news thing. 05:27, May 31, 2010 (UTC) The graybox issue, btw, is one of the cases in which BioWare came out and said, 'yes, this is a mistake'. This is why there is a note in the article about it. Before BioWare confirmed it, there were comments on tha talk page, but not in the article. SpartHawg948 05:30, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Edit Warring Please note that edit warring, which is exactly what you are doing on the Raloi page, is a bannable offence. I am aking you to please stop becuase the source is directly from BioWare, and therefore canon. If they had wanted that in, they would have put it in. Please stop before you are banned. Lancer1289 03:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC) I don't understand. Why is what I was doing edit warring, and what you were doing wasn't? And I explained above why sic needs to be in there. 03:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC) You violated the wiki-standard 'Three revert rule', adding material that is not needed. And sic isn't needed. Lancer was removing material that is unneeded. This is the difference, and why one is edit warring and the other isn't. SpartHawg948 03:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict)It is edit warring becuase you add something that is not applicable in the article, and I keep removing it. Becuase you keep adding it, it is edit warring on your part. It is BioWare's universe in Mass Effect, so they can do what they will with it. If they call it intergalactic then it's intergalactic. A sig tag isn't necessary for that reason. Lancer1289 03:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC) : :Haha, your calling me on edit warring, and before your post it says "edit conflict". How's that for hypocrisy, eh? Haha Thats what its called when two people edit tthe same time kid. ralok 05:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC) tis was a joke, my friend. :We're back in edit warring territory, and you have been warned. I give one warning, the next time I see the same behavior, it's a ban. This would be that next time. So I'd maybe choose your next edit carefully. SpartHawg948 05:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC) bro is this really something worth getting banned over, the only known fact is that the cerberus new network (likely cerberus funneling news to its people through other sources) used the word intergalactic, so within the universe this error exsists. Either that or council space uses the term because they figure that eventually . . . they will figure out intergalactic travel, y'know get a head start on things. Or perhaps the asari word for intergalatci and interstellar is the same so there are translation errors with human softwar, the amount of solutions is mind boggling. So until it is confirmed that it is a mistake then it is not a mistake. ralok 04:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC) I don't care if I get banned. Also, what is your interest in this? 04:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Wow. I think his 'interest in this'... is that he is interested. Interested in that it interests him, not that he has a vested interest. You don't need an invitation to try and offer a friendly word of advice. SpartHawg948 04:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :This is my talk page, is it not? Gotchu there don't I. HaHA! ::No. You don't. Anyone is free to add comments to any other users talk page. The only thing this being 'your' talk page means is that only you can remove comments from it (with a very few exceptions, i.e. blatantly offensive remarks such as racist comments, or editing comments left by other users by removing content, etc.) So no, you don't really have me there. I suppose to follow your format I should now say HaHa! SpartHawg948 ::yeah right. So i could, theoretically, delete what you just said? Now it is I who have gotchu, HaHA! (notice the last a is capitalized) 04:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Yup. You'd be well within your right to do so. At no point have I attempted to misrepresent this fact, so the 'HaHAsic' seems a bit unwarranted, as you really haven't 'one-upped' me on anything. But again, you're entitled to if you want. It is your talk page. SpartHawg948 04:38, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I believe that right there, YoU, just one downed yourself for ME! Now who's on top, eh? ::Um... Jesus? Or the Pope, if you're talking about here on Earth? Or Barack Obama, in the USA? Or me, speaking strictly in terms of this wiki? Or me again, if we're talking just this page, as the first post is mine (whether we're talking the auto-message or the first written post)? Or ralok, if we're talking just this thread? SpartHawg948 04:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Given that I responded to your previous post, it is pretty clear. You seemed to have no problems gathering that my other posts were directed towards you. :But it wasn't clear how you supposedly 'one-upped' me and were 'on top', given that there really wasn't anything going on in which you could be 'on top'. Unless it's an ego thing in which every situation must have a winner and a loser. If that's the case, that's just sad... Given the perplexing lack of something for someone to be 'on top' of, I had to guess. SpartHawg948 04:49, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Totally epic lawlz here. not really being to serious right now. But in the raloi part of my talk page, i am trying my hardest to be. ::Nor am I, which is why Jesus was the first answer that popped into my head, followed by all those other guys, myself included. SpartHawg948 04:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::See, self deprecation never hurts! Look the plain and simple fact is someone in the mass effect universe said "intergalactic" and thus that is what the article says, we have to go on second hand information, we dont have the source in our hands we cannot make judgements about this stuff. We are scribes, not builders of roads. WE may think about the materials being used to build but we have no say in how it is built, we can offer advice to the builders but we cannot garuntee they will listen, and there are things the builders are doing that we just cannot understand because its part of some greater plan. And we dont know what exactly is going on, the only thing we can do i9s just let it be. ralok 04:33, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Dude, you are turing this into something that sounds like a childish fight over a toy. You remind me of a certain ShadowDragon(Remember that Spart?). All he did was fight over information that was not relevant. Just stop before you push it to far.(This comes as friendly advice).MEffect Fan 04:46, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I do remember Shadowdragonsomezeroes. That guy was something else! Not as bad as RevansExile or Throwback, but still bad. And a tool. SpartHawg948 04:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Revan brings up some very good memories as well, man all three of those guys jsut insisted an arguing their points. To a fault. Lancer1289 04:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Gee Wiz! I am attracting quite the commotion here, ain't I? Nice to know that attention is being devoted towards me as opposed to places in this wiki that actually need working on. And don't yall tell me that I should do it, because I don't feel like it, and if you all don't, then what the hell is the point of this site? 04:49, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Because that is fact and canon information within this universe. It is wrong and you just can't seem ot admit that. Lancer1289 04:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :I know, the canon is wrong and that is what I am admitting, no, pleading, to you here! So you are on my side now? Soon I shall have an army that may liberate the world of all corruption and terror! ::And you just twisted my words. In this universe intergalactic isn't what you think it means. I don't support your addition, maybe because I reverted it every time, and still don't. You are arguing to a fault at this point, and I don't support your addition. Lancer1289 04:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :If you are so mad then just leave so we can work on those articlaes.MEffect Fan 04:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :As far as I know I don't have a Reaper controlling your minds. Do whatever the hell you want, I don't really want any of you here anyway. Cept SpartHawg, he actually tries to be right. HAHA, no offense, just yankin' yer chain. But really, you have control over youre actions. Do something productive if you feel like rather than arguing with someone who clearly won't change their stance. 04:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC) : You know what, SPART pull the plug . . . or whatever it is you do, umm work your magic, BANISH HIM. He is just being a jerk at this point ralok 05:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC) : Can't take a joke, can you? I still try to make productive edits. It is just these couple of issues I have issue with. No can do. Can't ban until rules have been broken. Also, it's not so much pulling the plug as pushing a button, or clicking a mouse. SpartHawg948 05:03, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Good thing ralok isn't the leader, or police brutality may be quite the issue. or admin brutality. i may have been dead at this very moment. :Dangit, i wish there was some kind of loophole to exploit in the rules so people like this could be banned. And i am doing somethng productive right now, i have mastered the art of multitasking! and beleive it or not if i was the leader i would have probably let you get away with it, i would alsso allow speculation to a certain degree. But im here, and I dont make the rules, i just do my best to follow them (Ask sparthawg, he has had problems with me in the past) ralok 05:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC) LOKI article Sorry that was my bad. Overreacting. Look at the page history for why I did. Again that one is my bad. There was a huge argument about likely, so again I overreacted. Lancer1289 07:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC) No problem, I was a bit perplexed at the reaction. 07:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC)